| GS 2: Polity and Governance |
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in relation to the CBI’s (Central Bureau of Investigation) investigation into the Delhi excise policy case.
However, the Court imposed several conditions on his bail.
During the proceedings, a judge criticized the CBI’s handling of the case, stressing that as India’s leading investigative agency, it must maintain transparency and avoid any appearance of bias.
The judge also referenced previous instances where the CBI was harshly criticized, even likening it to a “caged parrot.”
What’s in Today’s Article?
- Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- Background and timeline of the case
- Key highlights of the judgment
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
- About
- The CBI is India’s premier investigative agency, established in 1963 based on the Santhanam Committee’s recommendations.
- It is not a statutory body but operates under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
- Control
- The CBI functions under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which operates under the PMO.
- For corruption-related investigations, it reports to the Central Vigilance Commission.
- Functions
- Originally set up to investigate corruption in government departments, its scope has expanded to include economic offenses, cyber-crimes, organized crimes, and special crimes.
Criticism of CBI
- Guided By Pre-Independence Act
- The CBI operates under the outdated DPSE Act 1946, which hampers its accountability and autonomy.
- In 2013, the Guwahati High Court called the CBI unconstitutional due to its lack of statutory backing, though this was later stayed by the Supreme Court.
- Politically Inclined
- The CBI has faced accusations of political bias and susceptibility to undue pressure.
- The agency’s reputation was damaged when the Supreme Court described it as a “caged parrot” with many masters.
- Delays in Case Solving
- The CBI has been criticized for inefficiency and delays in resolving cases.
- Corruption and Nepotism
- Former CBI Director Joginder Singh exposed corruption and nepotism within the agency in his book.
- Turf War
- In 2019, internal conflicts between the CBI Director and Special Director led to accusations of corruption and money laundering.
Background – Timeline of the Case
- Delhi CM Arrested Twice
- March 21, 2024: Arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
- June 26, 2024: Arrested by the CBI while still in custody from the ED case.
- Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail
- July 12, 2024: The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal in the ED case, but he remained in jail due to the CBI proceedings.
- Delhi High Court Upholds CBI Arrest
- August 5, 2024: The Delhi High Court upheld the CBI’s arrest decision, instructing Kejriwal to seek bail from the trial court.
- Delhi HC Order Challenged in Supreme Court
- Kejriwal appealed the Delhi High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court, which granted bail.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
- Bail Granted
- Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan agreed to grant bail to the Delhi CM, finding that he met the criteria for bail: no risk of evidence tampering, no flight risk, and no undue influence on witnesses.
- Bail Conditions Imposed
- The conditions included:
- No visits to the Chief Minister’s Office or Delhi Secretariat.
- No signing of official files without the Lieutenant Governor’s approval.
- No public comments about the case or interaction with witnesses.
- Full cooperation with the trial and attendance at court hearings.
- The conditions included:
- Diverging Opinions on Arrest Necessity
Arguments centered on Sections 41(1)(b) and 41A of the CrPC, with Justice Kant ruling that Section 41(1)(b) was not applicable and that Section 41A does not require a notice for those already in judicial custody.
Arguments Presented by Delhi CM
Delhi CM contended that the criteria for his arrest under Section 41(1)(b) were not fulfilled. Additionally, he argued that he had not been served a notice under Section 41A before his interrogation by the CBI.
Justice Kant’s Rulings on Sections 41(1)(b) and 41A:
Justice Kant determined that Section 41(1)(b) was not applicable because the arrest of the Delhi Chief Minister had been authorized by a CBI Special Judge. He further clarified that Section 41A does not mandate that a notice be served to an individual who is already in judicial custody, which was the case for Kejriwal due to the ED matter. Justice Kant affirmed the CBI’s rationale for the arrest.
Justice Bhuyan’s Criticism
-
- Justice Bhuyan criticized the CBI’s actions, asserting that the agency cannot demand that an accused answer in a manner that pleases the investigators.
- He invoked Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination, and questioned the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest following his bail in another case.
Explore our courses: https://apnipathshala.com/courses/
Explore Our test Series: https://tests.apnipathshala.com/
